I had always assumed that if a man had gotten a woman pregnant, then if that pregnancy is carried to term, both partners should be financially responsible for the child regardless whether the man had wanted to have the child or not. The mindset being "they got them pregnant, so you have to face the consequences'".
I was talking with some people online, and they asserted that if the man did not want to have the child, then they should be able to apply to be resolved of any financial responsibility towards caring for it. I was at first against this proposal, but I feel like I now understand it better. Our current legislation was created at a time where abortion was tantamount to murder, and since it was illegal, an obligation of financial responsibility was the only way to ensure that women weren't stranded with children they couldn't afford to raise. But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn't seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point. Please explain to me if there is anything I'm failing to consider here.
I also want to apologize for the binary language I used in writing this. I tried at first to write this in a more inclusive way, but I struggled wrapping my head around it. If anyone can educate me in how to write in a way that doesn't disclude non-binary comrades, I would appreciate it.
You must log in or # to comment.
I would support this if we lived in a society where the child and mother would be guaranteed all the things they need regardless of whether the father is there physically or supporting them monetarily, but in our current society the argument goes: well it's too bad for the father that they have to pay for a child they didn't want, but the alternative is the mother and child being much worse off, and we should prioritize the well-being of the child, who didn't ask to be put into this situation in the first place.
I'd be careful about the "i'd love to support this, but in our current society" kind of thing. This form of rhetoric is always used to shut down things like medicare for all or cancelling students loans or whatever. We absolutely can have state provide this right now, just like we absolutely can provide things like universal healthcare and education.
Yeah that's a good point, I think there are too many issues currently present for there be no support given. Though I still wonder, in that case, isn't it more on the mother for refusing to get an abortion for a child she knows she cannot financially support?
i worry that kind of thinking leads to saying poor people shouldn't have children. i know a lot of poor folks, and a good many of them would be/are great parents. really, we need better social welfare for single parents as a solution
youre literally arguing for a man to be able to force an abortion on someone, which would involve things being nonconsensually put into a woman's vagina. /thread
youre literally arguing for a man to be able to force an abortion on someone,
Where did Dewot say that? Not doubting you but I don't see it.
uh oh is this the "Russian" trolls argument? I thought you weren't trying to lib-shame?
im not gonna argue with you lmao, youre a fucking reactionary. post your balls i wonder how productive they are.
It's for the child's benefit, not for "punishing" the person who helped conceive it. I'm not unsympathetic to the idea that's not technically fair 100% of the time in some philosophical sense (although I think it's probably horseshit a lot of the time), but in the world we live in now, the child has material needs that the state isn't going to cover. The only sensible people to have do it are those involved in conceiving it, regardless of their intent when they had sex. Otherwise the "fair" solution of not making the father pay just makes life even more precarious for single moms.
The long term solution has to be to make the state cover the costs of raising a child, not just to make the mother do it alone.
Not gonna lie this seems like something conservatives would say, "listen i'd love to live in a world where we take care of the children, but we don't b/c human nature, men are men, women are nurturing, etc., etc. so the man has to pay." (and yes I know you didn't say anything essentializing but it's not far from what you said to what something like Ben Shapiro would say)
I never said force people to get abortions. Here's what I'm saying:
Why is it that the money printer goes brrrr when it comes to injecting trillions in a failing stock market, funding defense budgets, funding secret wars, funding wars at the drop of a hat, redistributing wealth upwards (through regressive tax cuts), etc..... BUT when it comes to the state paying for child support all of a sudden "we don't have enough money so we need to tighten our belts, the sperm producer MUST PAY and if they don't we're gonna shame them like libs, and everyone needs to put their head down, keep calm, and carry on."
Copying a bit from a comment I made elsewhere in the thread:
Child support is actually the right of the child, not of the custodial parent. It’s not sex-specific either: women are as subject to this imposition as are men (it doesn’t matter that in practice there are fewer such cases, we’re talking legal principles here). Once a child is there, that child “claims” both parents’ support.
Once a child is there, that child “claims” both parents’ support.
I'd reframe this to "a child claims support from society." This takes the burden off of individuals and places it on society.
Sure, but I was responding more to this part of your comment:
the sperm producer MUST PAY
Because actually, uterus-havers can also end up responsible for child support. This just doesn’t happen very often.
I said that in response to many comments in this thread that seemed to rest their entire argument on the "sperm producer" paying, etc.
people can get ptsd from abortions so.. not necessarily a one time thing. it can be highly traumatizing.
Not to mention the reality that your access to abortion is regional and financial. Sure it's "legal" here but not accessible. By conservative design.
I honestly think that chapo.chat still has a really tradcath “human life is sacred” vibe to it.
redditor thread
I’m not sure why you think anyone is arguing for that. Can you explain why you think people in these threads are arguing for that, because I’m not seeing the connection
Won't somebody think of the children, but unironically. Child support isn't about punishment or blame, it's about a child who didn't ask for this and deserves to be cared for.
How is child support gender essentialist? The noncustodial parent pays it to the custodial parent, regardless of gender.
That was in response to many comments that used the concept of "sperm contributing partner paying the costs." I tried to point out there that it comes off as thinly-veiled gender essentialism.
Well, "sperm-contributing partner pays the cost" certainly is gender essentialist, and it's also incorrect. That makes it sound as if the other party doesn't contribute anything financially. The single parents I know work and contribute financially too. They're not lying around eating bon-bons all day.
This account is purposely taking the most bad faith interpretation of the people who disagree with them. I'm one of the people who used "sperm contributing" intentionally because 1) gendered language around who carries a child and who fertilizes the egg is getting less rigid, and 2) I'm deliberately not trying to make it a struggle session of men vs women. Yes, custodial vs non-custodial parent is better verbiage. Good call.
This account is purposely taking the most bad faith interpretation of the people who disagree with them.
Or... it's a reasonable interpretation? Is that so hard to believe? This sounds like some Sam Harris "I'm being smeared!" kind of thing.
Women are more likely to be awarded child support, are awarded more money, and more likely to actually receive the money. Although this data is from 1991 so.
Edit: Here's numbers from 2011. If you do the math it figures to 53.4% of custodial mothers being awarded child support vs 28.8% of custodial fathers being awarded. So still the same idea.
Even if you only look at custodial parents who are below the poverty line*, it's still 50.04% vs 26.9%
* It seems custodial fathers have a higher average income, so only looking at below poverty controls for that. Also I think that means poorer fathers are less likely to be awarded custody in the first place.
Edit: And here's data from 2015, publish in 2018 and republished in 2020. 52.7% to 39.6%.
So it's perfectly fine that men disproportionately get less child support than women? There's nothing wrong with the legal system enforcing the "women are the caretakers" gender role?
I literally do not care.
I hate to sound like the annoying Ben Shapiro here, but facts don't care about your feelings lol.
This is one of those "feminism is for everyone" moments. I think it would be great for more men to raise their children, instead of sticking to old gender roles.
The person above is posting MRA talking points. An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation and many parents share custody. If the non-custodial parent did not believe the other parent was fit they can fight it or at least get shared custody.
Oh I recognized the MRA talking point, I just enjoy responding to "but gender adjfdjfajfjajdf" with "yes."
Yes? That's my point. But courts are biased in thinking the mother is automatically the more fit parent, because of old gender roles.
An overwhelming majority of custody cases are settled in mediation, meaning there is no lingering disagreement over the decision. If a parent asks for shared custody they usually get it unless the other parent can prove lack of fitness, which is really fucking hard to prove these days. You're spreading nonsense.
Which parent disproportionately gets custody in court cases, usually regardless of whether they are actually more fit to care for the child?
Oof
It sounds like the "women control my world and steal what's mine" reactionary talking point.
It's not. I'm most likely going to end up with a guy, and I'm definitely never having children. It has nothing to do with women "controlling me" or "stealing what's mine".
Woman are more oppressed in many ways yes, but not in this specific way. Existing gender roles lead to women being seen as the better caregiver than men. Don't we want to fight against gender roles?
Jesus Christ, this thread. So many bad takes :haram:
You cannot expect women to have abortions. You cannot have them lose legal rights for not getting one. Abortions are not a good thing - they should absolutely be legal and accessible, mind you, but they are not a desirable outcome, but rather a last resort, which can be damaging to the person getting it. I fully support legalized, accessible abortions, because I believe the option should be available and should be administered in a safe and sterile environment and not in a back alley with a coat hanger. But it's still an unfortunate thing.
Ideally, society ought to take a larger role in raising a child, as it takes a village. In "return to monke" times, once children were old enough to run around and communicate, they'd learn and be cared for by the whole tribe, who were close to and trusted by the parents. Obviously in modern times this is not viable, due to the atomization of society and the lack of strong social bonds and trusted groups. The problem can be alleviated somewhat through social programs and the like, but beyond that I don't know how we might reshape society in such a way that we have more safe and nurturing environments for children that would take some of the burden off of the parents. Personally, I don't have children but I babysit for one of my friends, and despite being awkward around children at first, I've come to enjoy it - kids are much less draining when you don't have to deal with them 24/7.
However, the present conditions being what they are, you do have to bear part the responsibility for bringing a child into the world. It's not ideal, but until we establish FALGSC it's necessary.
Also just wanna point out that Chapo is very male and these discussions should probably be taking place in an environment where more female voices can be heard.
Abortions are not a good thing - they should absolutely be legal and accessible, mind you, but they are not a desirable outcome, but rather a last resort, which can be damaging to the person getting it. I fully support legalized, accessible abortions, because I believe the option should be available and should be administered in a safe and sterile environment and not in a back alley with a coat hanger. But it’s still an unfortunate thing.
Also just wanted to say that this rhetoric reminds me of this: https://citationsneeded.libsyn.com/episode-48-shifting-media-representations-of-abortion-part-i
I think you replied to wrong comment, my friend. I said nothing like that.
Oh, still waiting for that hog btw.
“Currently, society expects individuals to take on the burden of providing for a child. Therefore it should be considered fine and good for one parent to walk out and leave the child and remaining parent in a really precarious situation”
See, we can interpret your arguments in a bad faith way too
I'm saying that nobody should be in a precarious situation. If one partner wants an abortion then let them have it. If the other doesn't want the raise the child then let the state help with aid. It's not mutually exclusive, unless you're operating on some sort of weird austerity mindset, or some weird Jordan Peterson "men are men and should pay" shit, or some other kind of zero-sum view.
The problem can be alleviated somewhat through social programs and the like, but beyond that I don’t know how we might reshape society in such a way that we have more safe and nurturing environments for children that would take some of the burden off of the parents.
“listen, I really support universal healthcare, but you gotta understand, at our present moment, it’s just not feasible… we gotta tighten our belts… we can’t just have it… oh but you wanna start a war with iran, well then here’s a blank check. Listen guys… I’m a leftist and I believe that all this austerity talk is just right-wing BS that has no basis in material reality… oh but when it comes to child support there’s ‘no money’ for it… guess we gotta tighten our belts, even if one partner didn’t want the kid.”
Lol please stop pretending that your comment was anything resembling good faith.
However, the present conditions being what they are, you do have to bear part the responsibility for bringing a child into the world. It’s not ideal, but until we establish FALGSC it’s necessary.
This is what you said, which is basically some kind of incrementalist argument. I reject that premise. We can have these things now. I was responding to that if it wasn't clear.
We cannot reshape society overnight in such a way that there are strong social bonds that allow the burden of raising a child to be shared instead of falling exclusively on the parents. Maybe someday we'll have that in an ideal, FALGSC society, but in the meantime it's necessary to rely on the band-aid solution of social programs.
I can understand how you might misinterpret that but going full hog into implying I support austerity and war with Iran makes it clear that you need to hog out or log out.
Societal aid for parents is indeed cool and good. I’m with you there. I think the source of contention here is that most people who argue in favor of “financial abortions” don’t also advocate for the societal aid stuff; there are a lot of MRAs out there who seem to get off on the idea of leaving single mothers completely destitute and resourceless. If you’re not extremely explicit about the fact that you’re not one of those MRA types, people will think you’re one of them.
I've made it clear multiple times that I want the state to take care of the child instead of doing this weird personal responsibility shit (e.g. "you should've known that sex is bad, just like Sister Mary said in Sunday school"). It's the people on this thread who can't seem to read and automatically assume that I'm some sort of MRA incel.
That is not a bad-faith way of interpreting their argument.
I bet you fifty (50) USD that @ofriceandruin has said something semantically identical to that somewhere on the Internet.
Hmmm this is a very good take, I like it. My one concern is on the safety of abortions. Modern science has made abortion procedures safer than carrying a child to term. In that case, shouldn't a perfectly ran society encourage abortions rather than childbirth if the child is unnecessary?
if the child is unnecessary?
Uhh? Are there some people who are nececessary and others who are unnecessary? Necessary for what, according to whom?
There are many things that people do that have safer alternatives. You're more likely to die climbing a mountain than you are lounging around watching TV. Should a perfectly run society encourage people to do the latter rather than the former?
In that case, shouldn’t a perfectly ran society encourage abortions rather than childbirth if the child is unnecessary?
This is some disgusting shit to say. No. This is eugenics, white supremacy and misogyny, fuck off. A perfectly ran society should encourage bodily autonomy and put no restrictions on, and offer support to, carrying a pregnancy to term or having an abortion.
I really think you're putting words in my mouth here, I wasn't even saying that was the right solution, I was just asking a question.
I don't think any society, let alone a perfect one, should be able to control bodily autonomy. All I was asserting is that a society would encourage family planning education and birth control, and to promote abortions as a safe alternative for unsure mothers.
Maybe you should reevaluate the way you are phrasing things and ask yourself if you seriously understand what "family planning education".
No one should promote anything. All possibilities should be presented with as little bias as possible and be offered support for any decision they might make.
Do you think people don't promote abortions as safe alternatives for disabled people? And for poor people? Do you think we haven't seen how that works out?
That's why I said in a perfect society. All of this is meant to be purely speculatory, not legislation that we should be implementing tomorrow.
It shouldn't happen in a perfect society because we know how disgusting and damaging this is.
But now that we live in a world where abortion is legal (for now), and where abortion procedures are safer than carrying the child to term, there doesn’t seem to be a good argument for men still needing to be financially responsible for unwanted children. Men probably would still need to assist in paying for the procedure, but outside of that, I think they had a point.
Where does that say women should be forced to get an abortion?
sorry, you might have misinterpreted that part. I was talking about a scenario where the man did not want the child but the woman does vs a situation where both don't want the child. Women should always have the last choice on the matter.
Lol tell that to all the dumb dumbs here who seem to put words in your mouth. Funny, when they can't respond to a legit question or criticism they just say "post hog."
To all the horrified cishet men realising that sex sometimes makes babies: get pegged, get a vasectomy, swear off sex with fertile people with wombs forever, 69, go full volcel.
Don't worry it's just two MRA people who made accounts whose entire posting history is arguing in this thread. Report and move on I guess
but why pp sometimes make baby??!?!!? why date sterile women or become sterile me?!?!? why eat booty and peg me only?!?!?
:le-pol-face:
Or even have a mature conversation with your partner with regards to birth control and what to do when it fails, knowing that they could change their mind as actually being in the situation is different than imaging it, or even date a person that does not want kids. And accept the risk if you want to.
I just dowbeared your comment.
FAQ
What does this mean?
The amount of karma (points) on your comment and Chapo account has decreased by one.
Why did you do this?
There are several reasons I may deem a comment to be unworthy of positive or neutral karma. These include, but are not limited to:
-
Rudeness towards other Chapos,
-
Spreading incorrect information,
-
Sarcasm not correctly flagged with a /s.
-
Lack of pee pee poo poo
Am I banned from the Chapo ?
No - not yet. But you should refrain from making comments like this in the future. Otherwise I will be forced to issue an additional downbear, which may put your commenting and posting privileges in jeopardy.
I don’t believe my comment deserved a downbear. Can you un-downbear it?
Sure, mistakes happen. But only in exceedingly rare circumstances will I undo a downbear. If you would like to issue an appeal, shoot me a private message explaining what I got wrong. I tend to respond to Chapo PMs within several minutes. Do note, however, that over 99.9% of downbear appeals are rejected, and yours is likely no exception.
How can I prevent this from happening in the future?
Accept the downbear and move on. But learn from this mistake: your behavior will not be tolerated on Chapo.chat. I will continue to issue downbears until you improve your conduct. Remember: Chapo.chat is privilege, not a right.
-
"Your honor, I'm a communist and was an immature frat boy when I fucked that chick... I didn't know babies are made that way."
gay: somehow tries to use Engels to argue that state imposed perpetuation of a partiarchal system is justified because.... reasons?
somehow tries to use Engels to argue that state imposed perpetuation of a partiarchal system is justified because… reasons
When you can clearly read
To all the cishet women realizing that sex sometimes makes babies: take a celibacy pledge, don't have sex until marriage, swear off sex with fertile people forever, 69, go to church and come to Jesus. I recommend listening to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson as well. Remember, because of lobsters and hierarchies... you should be trad.
Hmm seems like some projection going on here... hope you are ok. Might need to either hog out or log out.
Forgot this one: "Be prepared to get an abortion or give birth"
don’t have sex until marriage
love the implication that married women don't have abortions 🤡
It was obviously a parody of your comment.
I think you might need hog out or log out.
I'm okay with telling women they have the choice to abstain from sexual activity that can get them pregnant even when they're using birth control if they don't like the possibility of needing an abortion or to give birth. This is what adults do and it applies to STIs as well.
This whole "this is what adults do" rhetoric is straight out of the right-wing playbook, as I've said many times before.
The solution is simple, state child support and no more shaming making this an individual problem. I thought we lived in a society? Not some kind of thatcherite hell-hole.
This whole “this is what adults do” rhetoric is straight out of the right-wing playbook, as I’ve said many times before.
No, they say you have to get married to fuck. I say you have to do sexual activities that fit your threat level. If the 1% failure rate of birth control is too much for you, go give head and get fucked in the ass or choose partners who have no way of getting pregnant (older cis women, cis women with no wombs, trans women... cis men?)
The solution is simple, state child support and no more shaming making this an individual problem. I thought we lived in a society? Not some kind of thatcherite hell-hole.
You're gonna have to wait will we reach full space gay communism to fuck babes raw, sorry
THE VOLCEL POLICE HAVE BEEN ABOLISHED, COMRADE
CUMMING IS A PROLETARIAN ACTIVITY
I’m gonna be lazy and copy (and lightly edit) a good reddit comment about the topic (the source is a deleted account so idk who wrote it):
The source of the right to an abortion is in bodily autonomy. The MRA spin about "the right to opt out of parenthood" is one of the wildest things I have ever read. "Opting out of parenthood" isn't a legally protected right in its own might, which is why it can't be "extended" to men, as neither women have it. Women have a right whose practical consequence incidentally includes opting out of parenthood, but the right stems from a completely different (and higher-level) principle.
Another problem is that child support is actually the right of the child, not of the custodial parent. It's not sex-specific either: women are as subject to this imposition as are men (it doesn't matter that in practice there are fewer such cases, we're talking legal principles here). Once a child is there, that child "claims" both parents' support.
I don't see a philosophically nor legally consistent way to solve the issue. The principles involved aren't of equal importance (an attack on bodily integrity and a financial imposition aren't comparable offenses) + there's a potential to multiply moral hazards if any potential consequences of the action are taken away for one party. Women have to face the ultimate physical and moral consequences of the decision (either way), men have to face the lack of control over it. Once the child is born, both parents have obligations towards them.
I suggest you to reframe and reword the whole issue. You don't have a "right to choose", because you're not in a two-party dynamic which involves bodily dependency. When you enter the picture, it's already a three-party dynamic and one of the parties has a legal claim over you and the third party (the mother). Your question is thus null: it's not that there is a legal right which you somehow can't exercise, you don't have one. A woman's right to an abortion is not a "right to opt out of parenthood". The second is incidental, not the source of the right.
I don't know if you're following legal niceties WRT new bioethical issues, such as IVF/surrogacy, but when you take out the direct bodily dependency, there is no power asymmetry between the man and the woman. Both have a theoretical equal claim to an embryo outside of the woman's body (and depending on where you are in the world, each party can demand or oppose its destruction - the party that will "win" will be the one who asks that which is given the priority for all such cases, regardless of their sex). It's only when bodily dependence, and thus the issue of bodily autonomy kicks in that any of this becomes so entangled.
This is one of those issues where mathematical "equality" cannot exist. Such issues are few, but they exist and are in function of differences in male and female bodily morphology, which then put the two in situations which can never be fully medically nor legally analogous, and different-level principles are involved (which means that we can't take the simplistic road of "balancing the interests out").
This is one of those issues where mathematical “equality” cannot exist. Such issues are few, but they exist and are in function of differences in male and female bodily morphology, which then put the two in situations which can never be fully medically nor legally analogous, and different-level principles are involved (which means that we can’t take the simplistic road of “balancing the interests out”).
I've wanted to say something like this for a long time but am no where coherent or smart enough to do it. Thanks
Seriously! Shut the fuck up little bitch! Go eat some fucking Oxy Clean. Stop posting and go back to wherever you came from. Raise your child and pay your child support. And once again SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
When you freely give your sperm to someone you lose the right to determine what happens to it. If you aren’t comfortable with that arrangement you need to be vigilant about your condom usage or get a vasectomy. I’ve been vigilant about my birth control usage because I don’t want children. It’s time we normalize sperm-bearing folks to take their ability to create life as seriously as those who who carry the pregnancy.
When you freely give your sperm to someone you lose the right to determine what happens to it. If you aren’t comfortable with that arrangement you need to be vigilant about your condom usage or get a vasectomy. I’ve been vigilant about my birth control usage because I don’t want children.
Also, this sounds exactly like something rape apologists say... not a good look
When you freely give your sperm to someone you lose the right to determine what happens to it. If you aren’t comfortable with that arrangement you need to be vigilant about your condom usage or get a vasectomy. I’ve been vigilant about my birth control usage because I don’t want children.
Not gonna lie this sounds a lot like "well if you didn't wanna get shot by the police you shouldn't have done XYZ."
It’s time we normalize sperm-bearing folks to take their ability to create life as seriously as those who who carry the pregnancy.
Not gonna lie this kinda sounds like a conservative argument to "make the man pay because they should be responsible because men are men, etc. etc."
The loudest commenter on this thread so far has zero comments prior to this thread. Take of that what you will.
Yeah I reported their stuff, hopefully people realise what's up
did all the MRAs come to chapo
it's a redditor website
Not gonna lie this sounds a lot like “well if you didn’t wanna get shot by the police you shouldn’t have done XYZ.”
No, it's not. Because we're not talking about extra-judicial violence. We're talking about two consenting adults having sex.
Not gonna lie this kinda sounds like a conservative argument to “make the man pay because they should be responsible because men are men, etc. etc.”
No. I've been very conscientious on not using gendered terms because I don't want to dilute the debate into a "men need to man up" argument. This is a discussion about two sexually fertile people coming together and weighing the risks of their union.
Because we’re not talking about extra-judicial violence.
In this case we're talking about judicially sanctioned violence of the state imposing their will on someone who didn't consent to taking care of a child they didn't want. It also perpetuates a lot of stereotypes (e.g. black dead-beat father who's never there, etc.)
We’re talking about two consenting adults having sex.
I get what you're trying to say but often these "adults" aren't any more mature than your average 15 year old. Scientific research is revealing that our brains don't really develop the ability to think in terms of long term consequences until at least 25 or so. Even if they are consenting adults (mentally mature and all of that good stuff), if one partner doesn't want a child then they don't want it. The messy reality is that most people don't consciously think of this stuff before they act. They're not like your wealthy suburban libs that "plan" everything. I don't think they should be strapped with this personal responsibility thing. I still think it's akin to blaming a poor person for using a plastic bag or plastic straw. It's some lib-shaming kinda shit.
I'm not talking about 15 year olds. As far as I know you can't sue a 15 year old for child support, but maybe someone on the thread can correct me.
The messy reality is that most people don’t consciously think of this stuff before they act.
Yes, and our culture has left the consequences of this ultimately to the person carrying the pregnancy. I'm saying we need to normalize the reality that both parties can create, and stop, fertilization from happening.
Arguing that a 25 year old doesn't understand the consequences of sex is incredibly patronizing.
I'm not lib-shaming. This is a socialist forum. All of us want all children to be born into a generous social safety net. OP is asking about a pregnancy now, in the present world.
Arguing that a 25 year old doesn’t understand the consequences of sex is incredibly patronizing.
I don't think so. How many chapos have done dumb shit at that age that they later regret? Like I said nobody is really mature until much later than the legal age in most countries: https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-47622059 (lib source I know). Plus this kind of reasoning is what boomer-types like to use on young people (i.e. "you youngins ain't kids anymore, so just die in this neoliberal hellscape!).
I’m not lib-shaming. This is a socialist forum. All of us want all children to be born into a generous social safety net. OP is asking about a pregnancy now, in the present world.
I get that, but this kind of "present world" talk comes off as telling coal-miners to "learn coding" without offering anything material to help them transition to stable employment, etc. And if you're gonna talk about the "present world" and changing it, tactically speaking (in terms of persuading your average Joe who gets triggered at the idea of child support) it does come off as shaming.
your head is entirely within the confines of your rectal cavity, sir. we will need to perform surgery to remove it.
Even if they are consenting adults (mentally mature and all of that good stuff), if one partner doesn’t want a child then they don’t want it.
Sexual intercourse is something that very specifically and directly leads to having children. Just about everyone is given sex education, it's not like a new helpless creature descended from you being in the world is some hazard occurrence.
You're arguing the case of a man who has had a child with someone but didn't want to. Overall, men are able to control decisions about reproduction far more than women. When a parent can just walk away from a child on the grounds that they "didn't want to have it", the other parent is saddled with the entire burden. And society is made up of other individuals. Who else should be responsible for raising your child but you?
I went through sex ed at age 11, and by age 15 I definitely was expected to know the consequences of my actions, of whatever type. An adult, even below the age of 25, is not oblivious like a 6-year-old is. You're simply concern-trolling.
Take a step back.
You are literally comparing having a child to being shot in the back by police on fabricated evidence.
There is an injustice in usurious lending that makes debt slaves out of people. There is an injustice in police brutality. There is no injustice in a person having to maintain an entity they created.
There are exceptions when a person gets threatened or emotionally manipulated into having a child. It is extremely rare for this to happen to a man, and it is right for there to be recourse in that situation. As a male-bodied person, if I don't want to have babies with someone I am fully under my own power to use protection or to not have sex with them.
"Won't someone think of the poor men who are forced into having children and then forced into supporting those children" is exactly what you sound like. I honestly hope you aren't in any position to pass down either your genes or your shitty ideas.
Your distinctions are all a matter of framing. For example, instead of 'usurious lending' I could call it a "free choice" to take on that debt. We all learn about spending and saving money, even if on a basic level. But I'm not gonna fall into dumb libertarian shit like that. Everyone of course "knows" that sex leads to children, but do they really "know" what that entails? This applies to those that get pregnant and those that don't. What's with all this weird "personal responsibility" shit when it comes to this issue? It's strangely libertarian and Jordan Peterson-esque
Seems this issue has already been discussed before: https://www.reddit.com/r/Socialism_101/comments/ixl9sc/socialist_views_on_financial_abortion/
To the two MRA trolls with accounts whose entire posting history consists of arguing in this thread, here is a resource on gender equality and child support
Maybe men should just fucking use birth control if they don't want kids lol??
Careful, conservatives use this argument as a cudgel against the pro-choice position.
Sure I guess, but so is the advice to "not act suspicious" in front of police or "not buy an iphone" if you can't afford healthcare. I just think it's important to not fall into a personal responsibility Jordan Peterson framing.
Apples and oranges my guy. Like everyone else has already told you. It's literally personal responsibility. Except for rape, nobody is forcing you to cum inside, that's your choice.
Jesus it is literally personal responsiblity... guess I'll have to add Jordan Peterson to the recommended Chapo reading list.
It’s literally personal responsibility.
You words, not mine.
men (cis-men, to be exact) don't have that many good birth control options though. Cis-women have a decent number, but cis-men only have vasectomies (which aren't reliably reversible) and condoms/spermicide (which can be inconvenient, and people don't always use them correctly).
If/when Vasalgel gets approved that'll change things.
I agree that penis-havers need more and better access to birth control, but the choices for womb-havers are also a chore at best, a mind and body-altering substance at worst. A lot of people have issues taking hormonal options, and the non-hormonal one makes periods more severe or are irreversible. And to me, if it a crapshoot for all genders, then the responsibility should be more evened out than it seems to be. as a side note, I'm getting spayed in a few weeks and I'm so excited to not have to worry about it anymore!
I mean we could take a page out of the fundamentalist handbook and sew women's vaginas shut. I hear that's "pretty effective" too....
Man where did all the reactionaries in this thread come from? Or were they here all along?
The comment you’re responding to was a pretty obvious joke. I recommend logging out for a while
Good to know that there are friendly leftists on this site and not a bunch of angry libs that freak out like your average Karen...
If/when Vasalgel gets approved that’ll change things.
Yeah that’ll never happen (in this current world). No pharma company wants to lose their contraceptive industry to a single outpatient injection.
Comparing stuff that isn't rape to rape isn't "a good look"
